Originally Posted By: helenwheels

Yes. Haiti is a perfect example.

The US has a long history of backing murderous regimes, especially in Latin America and the Caribbean. Maximiliano Hernández Martínez, Ubico, Trujillo, Duvalier, Pinochet, Somoza (father and sons)....

There are many Americans that don't mind human rights violating and murderous regimes as long as it's 'our bastard' doing it. The cries against someone like Castro ring hollow when these same people remain silent on all the others.


I think this response is rather simplistic and leaves out a lot of real world facts.

First, going back to Truman the USA has opposed communism, so we chose to ally ourselves with other leaders who shared that political position. True, a lot of them didn't have clean hands, but neither did those on the Left, plus those on the Left typically allied themselves with the USSR. So we were stuck with a lesser of evils.

If we didn't help keep our allies in power the Soviet Union would use its resources to overthrow them and install puppet regimes. The USSR kept communist regimes alive in Cuba, Nicaragua, Angola and Ethiopia, for example. None of those regimes were nice. Mengistu of Ethiopia created a famine that led to the deaths of a million. In 2006 he was found guilty of genocide.

In Cuba's case it seems like a false moral equivalency. The regime under Batista was nowhere near as totalitarian as Castro's. Yes, there was corruption under Batista, but are you telling me that there wasn't any under the Castro brothers? While most Cubans live on about $20 a month, the Castros live/lived like millionaires. That's not only hypocritical, that's at least as corrupt as the Duvaliers.

I also don't think it's true that we never criticized our "friends." We did. I recall a lot of criticism against the Duvaliers, but the problem was figuring out what do. Should the United States have moved in, taken over Haiti, cleaned it up and left? Sounds good in theory, but most countries don't appreciate being invaded by foreign powers, even if they have good intentions. His successor Namphy had a reputation for being honest, but only lasted a couple years until he was overthrown. Aristide was criticized for human rights abuses and corruption.

Another thing to consider is that fewer countries are enjoying human rights abuses than in the past because there is less tolerance for it. Russia isn't practicing the abuses it did (at least not on the same scale) when it was the USSR, and China is vastly improved compared to the Mao era. Until 1967 in some parts of the United States it was not legal for black and white people to marry, blacks had to use separate bathrooms and water fountains, and in World War II citizens of Japanese, (and a lesser extent) German and Italian descent were sent to internment camps. Today almost all of the abuses are coming from countries that are officially Muslim. So comparing today's foreign policy with that from decades ago is comparing apples to oranges.